Andersen Ranch West heads to Carson City Board of Supervisors

Neighbors to the proposed Andersen Ranch West raised various concerns about the project at the Sept. 28 Carson City Planning Commission meeting.

Neighbors to the proposed Andersen Ranch West raised various concerns about the project at the Sept. 28 Carson City Planning Commission meeting.

  • Discuss Comment, Blog about
  • Print Friendly and PDF

A controversial proposal to create 61 residential lots on a historic ranch in west Carson City is going before the Board of Supervisors at their meeting Nov. 3, which starts at 8:30 a.m. in the community center.

The tentative subdivision map for Andersen Ranch West would create 61 single-family residential lots and a 50.33-acre remainder parcel with an existing residence on an approximately 80.53-acre site zoned single family 1 acre (minimum lot size) and single family 12,000 (square feet). The site is located west of Ormsby Boulevard and north of Kings Canyon Road.

On Sept. 28, planning commissioners voted 6-1 to deny the project, forwarding their recommendation to the board. Planning commissioner Jay Wiggins voted against denial, saying the development application met “the letter of the law.”

Other commissioners and members of the public had concerns about housing density, neighborhood character, traffic, and flooding problems. City planners, however, found the proposal met current code.

“Based on the zoning for the gross site area of the project, the site can be developed with a maximum of 132 single family dwelling units,” Associate Planner Heather Manzo wrote in the staff report to the planning commission.

According to that report, the 61 lots proposed for the north end of the property would have a minimum size of approximately 14,380 square feet. There would be 3.82 acres of common open space, and the larger remaining parcel with the existing residence.

In an Oct. 19 letter to the Board of Supervisors, Carson City resident Jeffrey Foltz addressed a host of issues that were brought up at the planning commission, including parcel size, floodplain impact, and street improvements, among others.

“As you may also know, the applicant was given the opportunity by staff to submit a revised tentative map to address the PC’s concerns,” Foltz wrote. “The applicant declined.”

In a response to the planning commission’s recommendation of denial, engineers working on the project outlined one revision to proposed street improvements, according to Oct. 17 emails sent to city staff.

“We are finalizing site plan level information for a modification to the access such that we will only have one access point to (North) Ormsby that will align with the southern access point of the Ash Canyon project,” wrote David Snelgrove, planning and right-of-way manager at CFA Inc.

On Nov. 3, supervisors will also be considering the 41-lot Ash Canyon project, which sits east of the Andersen West project.

A zoning map amendment and tentative subdivision map for the Ash Canyon project were approved 6-1 by planning commissioners on Sept. 28. Commissioners added conditions that houses on the perimeter be single story, among other setback and spacing requirements. The zoning map amendment would change the 8.41-acre site’s current zoning from single family 12,000 to single family 6,000.

In other action:

• Supervisors will hold a hearing on the city’s proposed issuance of general-obligation infrastructure sales tax bonds.

The principal of the bonds is not to exceed roughly $5.6 million. Proceeds will be used for infrastructure projects.

• Supervisors will convene as the Liquor and Entertainment Board to consider appointing Carson City Planning Manager Heather Ferris as a liquor license hearings officer.

According to the staff summary, Ferris would approve or deny applications for liquor licenses.

The hearings officer also considers penalties for violations.

“Only one hearings officer is currently appointed by the Liquor and Entertainment

Board,” the summary said. “As liquor license applications are routinely heard by a hearings officer, it is prudent to appoint another hearings officer to help facilitate scheduling of administrative liquor hearings.”

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment